September 17, 2007

"Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world. May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women. If mothers ruled the world, there would be no…."

The screen goes dark and we don't hear her say “…god-damned wars in the first place.”

I have a problem with that transcription. It leaves out a big gap where the audience is applauding and she's telling them to give her time to finish, then dithering about how she's forgotten memorized lines. The music comes up and she's obviously gone overtime. Then she gets out the last part.

Now, maybe she was cut off by Fox because she made that mild anti-war statement, but don't stack the deck. Don't doctor the quote.

It looks to me as though she was censored for saying "god-damned" and going way too long, but maybe she was censored for stating a political view the network disapproves of. I doubt it. For one thing, Fox only hurts itself by demonstrating bias, especially when it lashes out at a beloved actress. And those who support the war are used to statements like Field's and tend, I think, to see that as already expressive of a certain harmless naivety.

I'm thinking Field knew exactly what she was doing. She had her whole speech memorized, and I don't think she suddenly became flustered and couldn't get out her lines. She's very professional, and this was part of a professional routine. I suspect that she deliberately dragged out her speech so that Fox would need to cut her off and the claim of censorship could be made. Oooh! Evil Fox! Boycott them!

I suspect that she deliberately dragged out her speech so that Fox would need to cut her off and the claim of censorship could be made.

Extremely doubtful. Field's speech ran 96 seconds before it was cut off. It's unlikely that Fox imposed a 96 time limit on all speeches.

The fact is that Fox censored the remarks of others too, on the basis of "language." That's by far the most obvious explanation for what happened to Field.

It is strange though that on the Fox News website, the feature story (from AP) about the Emmy Awards makes absolutely no mention of the content or censorship of Field's speech but specifically notes the censorship of Ray Romano and Katherine Heigl. Here's what the story says about Field's speech and Fox censors:

Sally Field was honored as best actress in a drama for "Brothers & Sisters." Falco was among her competitors.

"How can that be? These wonderful actors," Field said. Cleary flustered, she lost her train of thought at one point, shouting at the audience to stop applauding while she struggled to finish her acceptance speech.

...

The usually staid awards needed attention from the censors from the start, with first presenter Ray Romano. He joked about his former "Everybody Loves Raymond" wife, Patricia Heaton, sleeping with her new "Back to You" co-star Kelsey Grammer.

But he used a stronger word, which prompted Fox to black out the show for a few seconds. Heigl mouthed another expletive, which Fox unsuccessfully tried to evade with a different camera shot.

She has 3 sons, two of which are listed as having degrees and civil careers. The youngest son is 19 and at NYU. I think it was simply projection on her part. Interesting, but nobody calls her on inventing the sympathy connection.

as for the subject: I don't think that there is a VRWC to silence actors. they babble everywhere on lots of topics they know nothing about. God, there would have to be an army of bleepers. I do think that she was over time and that the bleeper was trying to keep profane language off the air. (or in this case what might be heading to some profane material.

It appeared to me that she clearly forgot the last part of her speech- she looked honestly flustered. Come on, she's not that good of an actress. I think you're giving her way too much credit...you really think she's that devious to fake forgetting a speech so she could play the victim of censorship? Please. When asked about it backstage, her response to being censored was "Oh well," which is hardly the kind of response of someone who is looking for attention....you're way off on this one.

I think if she had left off the "god" in front of the "damned" they wouldn't have censored her. The Fox entertainment network isn't the same as Fox "news" and I don't see these folks as crazy right wingers. But yes, they did censor her. It had nothing to do with her running long because they cut back to her for a closing shot saying "thank you so much" after they cut away to that weird disco ball thing in the corner of the theatre (just like they did with Ray Romano- that disco ball was the cutaway shot during all the censored lines last night).

And I don't know if Crooks and Liars changed their post after you read it, but it clearly shows the gap in between the applause and Field's rambling. The last line is spaced out, although it doesn't say "audience applause." But it makes no difference, the point was to show what Fox censored, not that she forgot her lines.

By the way, the view that rejecting war is "harmless naivety" is in fact dangerously naive. There's nothing naive about being anti-violence...is your worldview really that warped and barbaric? Field's statement applies to all forces of war, the evil doers and "the decider."

"And I don't know if Crooks and Liars changed their post after you read it, but it clearly shows the gap in between the applause and Field's rambling. The last line is spaced out, although it doesn't say "audience applause." But it makes no difference, the point was to show what Fox censored, not that she forgot her lines."

No, they didn't change it. The gap they show is where the censorship begins. There was much other talk about forgetting the lines and so forth that is simply omitted without elipsis. Watch the clip!

"Beloved actress"?? Well I suppose by some people who confuse the actor with the roles that they play.

Actors are people with foibles, good and bad character traits, dumb as a box of rocks or smart as a fox as the case may be. Sally Fields is not the Flying Nun in real life. Just as we have found out that Mel Gibson is not really William Wallace (Braveheart).

Beloved?

Also, you guys need to realize the difference between Fox News with political opinion shows like Hannity and Combs and Fox Entertainment network and FX that air shows like 24, The Simpsons and American Idol. Just because they all begin with the letter "F"; it doesn't make them the same.

My family and I love "Brothers and Sisters", and we often comment on how exceptional Sally Field is in her role: she nails the conflicts that every wife/mother must feel in overseeing a large brood. She deserved her Emmy more than almost anyone else did theirs (Katherine Heigl was a good choice, in what was the tightest category).

Though I am a war supporter, I didn't find Sally's speech offensive - in particular because it stated her feelings without slamming anyone else. The problem that celebrities create for themselves when making political statements comes from the slandering of those on the opposite side.

The censors only cut away due to her use of an expletive, which they also did when Ray Romano did something similar.

When questioned about the timing of Fox’s silencing of her speech, Ms Field said “What really angered me was they cut me off before I could announce my next film Smokey and the Bandit III the Green Team where Burt, Paul Williams, Dom Deluise and I all squeeze into a Prius and enter the Amazing Race. It’s typical of Fox’s disregard for the environment and I intend to fly to New York in my private jet to personally confront them! Those Nazi bastards!”

What censorship? Sally Fields doesn't own the stage. Fox purchased the broadcast rights from the Academy and has contractual right to shape the content of the program. Only the radical left thinks they have an absolute right to yell fire in a movie theater. The awarding for TV & movies has become too political and diminishes their value.

Trooper York fails to research his lame joke making it even lamer than intended: Ms Field said “What really angered me was they cut me off before I could announce my next film Smokey and the Bandit III the Green Team where Burt, Paul Williams, Dom Deluise and I all squeeze into a Prius and enter the Amazing Race.

Sally Field was at Outfest Los Angeles this year at an event devoted to Brothers and Sisters. She was hysterically funny talking about her long career whihc goes all the way back to Gidget. She said the distance between that show and Brothers and Sisters is not to be believed. "Now everyone's having sex. Back then I didn't even have a bellybutton!"

I was going to point out what Bill said, but he beat me to it. As I understand it, this was a live show, probably with a 7 second delay. So the guy hit the dump button before the goddamn and anything else she said in the next 5 seconds or so was also muted. The censorship folks *might* have a point if this was edited and taped. But it was live. There is nothing to this.

Well, it's true, if mothers ran the world, there probably wouldn't be all the god-damned wars in the first place. And we'd all have clean underwear.

Actually, in what we call "the West," we've had quite a few mothers in charge of countries that went to war. In January 2009, we'll likely have another very big country with the largest military on the planet, led by a mother. I wonder what Sally Field will think about that. Perhaps she was trying to build support for Hilary as the unilateral disarmament candidate.

One thing's for sure. If the Islamic fundamentalist movement allowed women of any status, mothers or not, to participate in public life in any way whatsoever, they might have a different idea than killing all us infidels by sending their sons on suicide missions in pursuit of an eternal orgy. My mom would have found that scandalous! "And how do you know they're all virgins?" Maybe Fox cut that part of Sally Fields' speech out too.

"Oh, really? You think Fox or any other network should have the right to bleep out whatever THEY think you shouldn't hear?

Fox can certainly "shape" the presentation of the content as far as timing, etc., but I don't think they have the right to pick and choose what the American public hears.

I think the FCC has that responsibility."

Wow!

Censorship, Lucky, requires State action. A private entity, such as Fox, can broadcast what it likes, or doesn't like, and you can watch, or not, as you choose. Ergo, no state action.

You, however, appear to cede the authority to determine the "right to pick and choose what the American public hears" to the State, i.e. the FCC. That IS censorship. Bleeping obscenites is one thing; however, the hue and cry here appears to be that, allegedly, evil old Fox censored for political/content reasons, not just bad words. You, Lucky, then opine that only the State should so censor.

Want to rethink that? 1st Amendment issues, ya think?

And BTW - this is my first issue posted (and 2nd post) with Ann, though a long-time reader. Hope it'll be fun.

The first flustered, rapidly talking, but not saying anything bit of her ramble didn't suggest to me so much that she was a wily pro knowing exactly what she was doing . . .,

Instead it suggested that they must be mixing some meth into her Boniva.

As a long time actress you'd think she'd know that you can mention God, you can say damn, but you can't say Goddamn on live TV. With that knowledge she managed to force the appearance of being censored over content. Also, CBS, NBC and ABC all would have pushed the button on this speech, this wasn't a FOX thing, besides FOX broadcasting is as liberal as all the others, especially in LA. The editorial content of the local news broadcasts at the two Fox owned stations here are pretty lefty, especially when it comes to immigration.

Luckyoldson,All 4 networks would have dropped the GD. Your made up "rights" trope is like I said, radical leftists think they have the absolute right to yell fire in a theater. Common civility, proper decorum are not the radical's mo, such things belong to the "establishment."

If Sally Fields has any class, she would apologize for her language and be glad Fox bleeped it out.

Actually, the point is whether or not she was censored due to her point of view. Those who understand the technical aspects know she wasn't. The only person bringing up "incredibly unpatriotic, unamerican vent by some washed up old actress." is you. Careful you don't get straw in your eyes.

Yeah, that's who Luckyson and I trust to pick and choose what we get to hear -- a governmental agency dominated by lawyers from telecommunications industry. Who better to protect us from those bad people at Fox who keep trying to keep "god" out of everything?

And while we're at it, I want to nominate the Luckster for Administrator of a National Draft. He seems to have a real motherly gift for discerning who should serve in the military and who shouldn't.

Can we assume everybody here has a child serving in Iraq...giving them the right to comment, criticize or commend?

I had two grown men (nephews) who have already served in Iraq and Afghanistan and thankfully have come home safe and sound after 3 and 2 tours in the combat zone and each of them re-upping for service.

We don't send children to Iraq. We have an all volunteer military comprised of grown up adults who are responsible for their decisions. I haven't heard that we are "shanghaiing" people into the military.

Faux had the right to carry the broadcast. They did not have "editorial or content rights" as far as anyone can see. They can't decide one damn thing about the content of the program, the order, what anyone wears, NADA. They do have a 7 deadly word censorwhip right of which GD is NOT one of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words).

As to the cannard observation that GD was censored out and they just happened to blip "war" is lame. The phrase was uttered in less than a second and these people are trained and experienced in getting it right. Some networks actually have voice recognition software that does the job on the fly.

Broadcast rights deal with exclusivity, re-broadcast, permissions for use of the broadcast, etc.

If you want to go nuts then go to U-tube and find the infringers and call them to Faux's attention.

Next we burn and bulldoze every copy of Smokey and the Bandit and Norma Rae we can find.

She doesn't know who she has messed with.

This is a complete outrage.

This is worse than the Kerry botched joke but not nearly as bad as the John Boehner comment, that not one conservative (including Althouse) seems to mind-but that's ok. When we republicans and conservatives say something offensive to some we don't care and don't want to talk about it. But when some liberal does it or Hollyweird actress does it its unforgiveable.

Technically correct. Though many networks and affliates when editing movies for television tend to bleep out "God" and not "damn." This does seem to be changing and tends not to be consistent.

Luckyoldson said: Fox can certainly "shape" the presentation of the content as far as timing, etc., but I don't think they have the right to pick and choose what the American public hears.

I think the FCC has that responsibility.

No they don't and the FCC commissioner has said they don't want that responsibility. Part of the problem is that the FCC won't come out and tell the networks would is and is not allowed. Because that would be government censorship. Instead, they act after the fact after receiving complaints. So there's (another list):

1. a "god-damned," which sometimes gets cut, and until recently would almost always get cut.2. a live broadcast with a censor employed by Fox, not the FCC3. Fox is still undergoing litigation with the FCC over the superbowl4. (hypothezing) an older, more general audience causing an itchy trigger finger on the button than if this was "24" or "Two and Half Men."5. The dump button recycle time that deletes the rest of the sentence, not just a possible profanity.

I guess someone could view it as censorship over political views, but I see too many factors pointing towards run of the mill network nervousness. Besides, considering how much more people are talking about this than if it hadn't been bleeped, either Fox did a horrible job of censoring Sally or the people running the broadcast (ya know, the basic cadre of evil hoolywood types) knew that bleeping Sally would cause more controversy than not.

And if Sally hadn't been bleeped everyone would be discussing how horrible Fox was for allowing blasphemy to be aired. Similar to Kathy Griffin's "suck it, Jesus."

For the record LOS: Can we assume everybody here has a child serving in Iraq...giving them the right to comment, criticize or commend?

1. I have no children2. I went overseas in one war, Vietnam, and served at home during GWI and some minor things3. My wife currently serves, has not been deployed, she's a JAG, but serves honorably through both GWI and GWII4. I was working in Pentagon the day before, but not on 9/11.5. I lost acquaintances on 9/11.6. Some of our friends have died in Iraq and some of my wife's troops are there now (lawyers and legal clerks go over pretty much as individual replacements depending on specialty)

are those the 6 degrees of connection needed to support victory?

what is your right to oppose the war since we seem to be keeping score here?

Bill it's not a real Smokey and the Bandit movie unless Burt and Sally are in it...I refuse to recognize the validity of Smokey and the Bandit unless it is exactly the way I want it to be...sort of the same way some people feel about the 2000 election...I am sorry you felt the joke was lame...but I just couldn't come up with a funny Sister Bertrille joke...and I feel that Smokey gives a better window into the quality of both Sally's intellect and her contribution to cinema...but thanks for input...Best Regards, Trooper.

trooper york: I hesitate to even bring this up, since its an admission that I watched it, but Burt did show up briefly near the end of Smoky and the Bandit III in character as The Bandit. There. I said it. I was young, and in college and was experimenting with bad movies.

Yes Jeff but that was only becauseof the mandate by the Florida Supreme Court. and I refuse to recognize this egregious usurpation of the Rule of Law...remember it must be both BURT and SALLY for it to be a true Smokey and the Bandit...but you are correct and it was a long time ago...I remember the dispute had something to do with a hanging Chad Everett, but I simply forget the details...but none the less...no justice...no peace!

Well played Bill, well played... I tip my hat to your knowledge of the cinema...although the contribution of Paul Williams can not be gainsaid...you must admit that nothing and I mean nothing outweighs the contribution of the one and only Dom Deluise..because it's not a real comedy unless you got a fat Italian guy!

Oh, and this idea that everything permitted must be compelled is hideously evil.

Just so you know.

When we absolutely refuse to restrain ourselves or make moral choices APART FROM STATE REGULATION then our culture is doomed.

Stores have every right to decide not to carry certain magazines, even though they are legal. A television station can decide to cater to its audience by being *more* restrictive on language than the State imposed restrictions.

"Be moral for me Daddy, so I don't have to" isn't a virtue, it's a cop-out and plea for personal weakness of character. It's a plea for the State to control morality.

And that's a fact whether the people trying to make everyone else behave have a conservative religious agenda or are opposing that religious agenda while promoting one of their own that includes the same dependence on the State to define what religions used to define... right and wrong. And it equally assumes that it's the proper place of government to make those definitions and enforce them.

We exchange character for State control, personal responsibility for excuses.

I am sorry Jeff but I beg to differ…clearly Smokey and the Bandit II is far superior…as Smokey I is not a true classic comedy of the old school IMHO….just the plot alone (they were delivering an elephant to the Republican National Convention) is enough to show the intrinsic political and metaphoric importance of Sally Field’s career as a thespian…and how far she has fallen from her patriotic zenith as Burt’s plush toy….not to mention the brilliant character study by Dom Deluise as a stranded Italian gynecologist…the only thing funnier than a fat Italian guy is a fat Italian guy who examines elephant cooch for a living…so there.

Regarding "Cannonball Run," it is but a pale and inept imitation of Gumball Rally. Among other recommendations, it includes a early role by the exquisite Raul Julia. Interestingly, years later he would star in the political satire Moon Over Parador. Which is also overshadowed by its own pale and inept imitation, Dave.

Ah yes...but Cannonball Run and Gumball Rally are both mere pale imitations of the immortal Death Race 2000 staring David Carridine, Sylvester Stallone and the one and only Martin Kove as Nero the Hero...Death Race 2000 is the essence of 1970's road race movies and in fact the original source document for the current Emmy winning series "The Amazing Race."

Yes, He was in both Cannonball run movies, which were based on the far better Gumball Rally which itself was based on the actual Cannonball Baker Sea-To-Shining-Sea Memorial Trophy Dash. I was in High school when Gumball rally came out, and a senior when Cannonball run came out and I got a lot of speeding tickets back then.

Speaking of Dom Deluise, anybody back then expected he'd still be alive and kicking in 2007?

I remember reading somewhere (I think Slate) about how YouTube was killing awards shows. People don't watch them live anymore (and this current Emmy's was watched by a record low 13.1M folks).

No reason to slog through 3+ hours of self-congratulatory drivel regarding a bunch of shows you don't watch and don't care about, when if anything interesting happens, it will race across the internet the following week.

Maybe the awards shows should cut out the middle man, and just 'broadcast' directly to YouTube as a series of 3 minute clips.

Seems like all the big industry awards (Grammys, Oscars, Emmys, Tonys) go to performers and product that don't interest the public at large. The main public interest for these shows are the pre-game highlights of the 'who are you wearing' variety, and the potential for an embarrassing flub or controversial moment made by a performer, presenter, award recipient (like Sally Field this week, or Britney last week).

Rather than watching the show you can just head over to Go Fug Yourself to see the worst (and best) clothes, and see what shows up on YouTube for the 'water cooler' moments.

Here's a question. What did the mothers of the Moslems who flew the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon and the field in PA say to Sally, when Sally called them to tell them that Sally was going to be speaking for all mothers?

"Gumball Rally" was too close to the production dates of "Death Race 2000" to have been influenced by it.

According to wiki (grain of salt tossed over shoulder), the Sea to Shining Sea Memorial Trophy Dash was itself inspired by earlier movies: The runs were inspired also from movies like the 1971 film Two-Lane Blacktop. A similar film, Vanishing Point, was released on theaters a few months before the first Cannonball.

This I did not know. 1976, the same year as "Gumball Rally" also saw the release of Cannonball aka Carquake. It's about an illegal cross-continent road race starring David Carradine ("Death Race") and written and directed by Paul Bartel ("Death Race").

"So, you guys need to rethink your talking points, to embrace the fact that Fox censored Sally Fields for their own reasons, which we may only suppose based on their past history."

Paul, one of two things happened.

Evil Fox network people were in the booth on the off chance someone would say something about the war, and were lucky enough to have the statement led off with a curse word , so they cut it even though they know by the example just set by Kathy Griffith and would get it far more press than just letting the statement thru, OROne of the teams responsible for the delay and the button had a few seconds to decide and erred on the side of caution.

I remember vanishing point. It did not have a happy ending. I don't remember carquake. There was a video game that came out based on death race 2000 that I spent a lot of quarters on. It was pretty basic. There were a number of stick figures walking on the green screen and you moved a car so that it hit them. When you did, there was a little scream and a gravestone popped up. You had to keep from being hemmed in by the tombstones. Ah, good times. There was a predictable outcry against the game.

Internal evidence... and by that I mean Sally Fields own words afterward... suggest that getting a "goddammed" beeped out isn't the least bit surprising.

She was told she got beeped and she *didn't* say "It was what I said about the war!" No, she said, "maybe I shouldn't have put the "god" before the "damned". (paraphrased, but darned close to that).

The "fact" that our determinor of morality, the FCC, proclaimed a holy decree that "goddammed" was not offensive in 2003 does not mean, first, that it actually isn't offensive to anyone, and second, that it has never been bleeped from a live television show since that year.

Jeff, as I'm sure you're aware, Fields' comment did not lead off with a "curse word" (and I include that term in quotes, since Fox doesn't regard it as a curse word in any other programming). In fact, if you look at Fields' comment here on this post, you'll see that she was clearly in the midst of an anti-war statement which concluded with said "curse word."

Seriously, when you have to distort the facts to make your point, does it ever occur to you that the point doesn't deserve to be made?

Which seems more likely to you?

In answer to your question, this was clearly a case of Fox employees in the editing booth, enforcing Fox editorial policy. That's the case with all broadcasts. Given Fox's well documented partisan bias, applied to their most hot-button issue (the Iraq War), by someone who does not share Fox's partisan bent, and all other things being equal, it looks as though Fox censored Fields for her anti-war sentiment.

paul a'barge said..."Here's a question. What did the mothers of the Moslems who flew the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon and the field in PA say to Sally, when Sally called them to tell them that Sally was going to be speaking for all mothers?"

Sally Field says she mourns for mothers who have lost their children or who are in harm's way...and adds a comment regarding women being less threatening or war-like...and many here stomp all over the woman.

I realize politics are politics, and that many here worship G.W., but I do think she was speaking for mothers and parents in general.

Luckyoldson said... paul a'barge said..."Here's a question. What did the mothers of the Moslems who flew the planes into the WTC and the Pentagon and the field in PA say to Sally, when Sally called them to tell them that Sally was going to be speaking for all mothers?"

Wittle Dust Bunny says: "We don't send children to Iraq. We have an all volunteer military comprised of grown up adults who are responsible for their decisions. I haven't heard that we are "shanghaiing" people into the military."

You might want to run this by those in the National Guard or who are on their 3rd and 4th tours of duty.

I have a feeling they're surprised by what's happened to their lives and families.

No, she wasn't speaking for mothers or parents in general, though she seemed to be making that claim.

Not that it's unusual.

I get tired of being told by others what I think about various things by virtue of having a used womb.

Almost everyone is either a parent or has parents, after all. Most women *do* reproduce therefore most women are or will be mothers. The idea that this is particularly meaningful when it comes to how individuals view the world makes one wonder where all the non-parents are hanging out and running things over all these centuries of civilization.

"You might want to run this by those in the National Guard or who are on their 3rd and 4th tours of duty."

They volunteered. I don't think they were grabbed off of the street.

If you are a guy who decided to become a sanitation worker because the union benefits and salaries are great, don't complain about having to deal with icky garbage. They shouldn't be surprised. It comes with the territory.

You have a lot of "feelings" about other people's opinions, don't you Lucky.

Feelings about how soldiers ought to think about their deployments, feelings about how Generals feel about stepping down from their jobs, feelings about how mothers feel about being politically co-opted by people making general claims about what mothers feel.

Waaah!!! That was a sexist comment and as a member of a protected minority group I demand an immediate apology for your insensitive comments. In fact, I think you should have to into rehab to be shown the error of your ways and to get you to "right thinking".

Apologize right now for being a sexist chauvinistic pig. I demand this as my right to never be offended and to point out that you have abused your free speech privileges against a minority. Shame, shame, shame. Self censor yourself.

Seven Machos said... Bill, try using the tin foil you wear on your head for better reception.

While I do not wear a tin foil hat, I am happy to see that you are aware of the research that proves tin foil hats actually enhance the government's mind control rays, rather than shielding the wearer from them.

*SIGH* "If mothers ruled the world, there would be no…."The screen goes dark and we don't hear her say “…god-damned wars in the first place.”"

"Jeff, as I'm sure you're aware, Fields' comment did not lead off with a "curse word" (and I include that term in quotes, since Fox doesn't regard it as a curse word in any other programming). In fact, if you look at Fields' comment here on this post, you'll see that she was clearly in the midst of an anti-war statement which concluded with said "curse word."

At what point was this cut off? At the freaking curse word.

"Seriously, when you have to distort the facts to make your point, does it ever occur to you that the point doesn't deserve to be made?"

Then why did you distort the facts to make your point? As stated, she was cutoff at the "goddamn". Simple as that. Good Lord. Such a projection problem.

The belief that because a government entity would not call something forbidden means that you must allow it within the limits of your own property is possibly the most egregiously wrong misapprehension of American law possible.

"I can certainly "shape" the presentation of the content as far as timing, etc., but I don't think I have the right to pick and choose what the American public hears."

What an incredibly silly statement. Of course you do. It's your network. You can do whatever you want. If the people producing the event don't like it, they will shop the event around to other networks. If you sign a contract saying you will broadcast with no network standards and practices, I assume the producer can sue you for breach of contract.

That's right, Jeff. But in contradiction to your claim, this "freaking curse word" did not come at the beginning of her comments. Read them for yourself:

"Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world. May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women. If mothers ruled the world, there would be no…."The screen goes dark and we don't hear her say “…god-damned wars in the first place.”

So, as I've demonstrated, you were flat-out wrong when you said this:

"and were lucky enough to have the statement led off with a curse word"

Understand now? In order to make your point, you have to change the facts around. Seriously, if you truly believe that you are right, there should be no reason to make false statements. Right, Jeff?

In the meantime, here in reality, we've got a lengthy anti-war statement from Fields, the latter part of which was bleeped out. Of the part which was cut, there was one phrase which figures prominently in Fox programming, which the FCC does not consider offensive. We're left to believe that either Fox accidentally bleeped out a whole sentence to get out a single word that is used all the time on their network; or that Fox editors, hearing the anti-war sentiment, seized on a quasi-curse word so as to silence the content that was politically offensive to Fox execs who make the editorial policy.

Furthermore, what makes you think that Sally Field can say whatever she wants on the dime of FOX and all its advertisers?

There are decency standards, which Field was following. Then there are "capitalist" standards such as entertainment value, etc. Fox had already decided in favor of Field by hosting the Emmys. So, if Field violated another standard of Fox's, one that says that you should not criticize Republican policy on Fox network, then they should publicize this standard, don't you think? Come out and say it, and leave the supposition out of it.

Why are you wasting your breath? FOX can do what it wants with its air. Period. End of story.

That's true. Of course, we all know that if a network had edited content that you personally found valuable, you would be screaming like a stuck pig.

This all points to the hazard of media consolidation, where one organization with a highly partisan leaning decides what Americans should see, hear and read. Your double-standard on this issue notwithstanding, this should concern all Americans.

Jesus, it's like talking to a preschooler. At what point was she cut off? What was the first word that was cut off? Does that make it simpler? The statement that was cut off was "…god-damned wars in the first place.” which begins with "god-damned" We are not starting with her speech or the start of the program or last Tuesday or any other arbitrary start point you require to make your point. We are starting with the point she was cut off. That was the topic of this post, that is what we are talking about.This is how you plan on arguing your side?

Okay, Jeff, I understand you find yourself caught in a lie, and have nothing to say in your defense but denial. Knock yourself out.

You're right, Sally Field's first word was "Goddamn" followed by an anti-war screed. In upholding FCC standards in bleeping out this utter obscenity, Fox editors could not have known that "Goddamn" would be followed by a statement against war. This Althouse blog must have grabbed the wrong transcript!

"one that says that you should not criticize Republican policy on Fox network, then they should publicize this standard, don't you think?"

You're kidding. You actually think that's the policy. I assume you never watch or listen to Fox, which is your right as a consumer, but that statement is just nonsense. Not to mention the fact that you never would have heard about the Sally Field statement should it have been broadcast in its entirety. A point you continue to miss. Had Fox wanted to censor her regardless of the profanity, they would have just upped the volume of the band mike.

"Okay, Jeff, I understand you find yourself caught in a lie, and have nothing to say in your defense but denial. Knock yourself out."

And that's what pisses me off the most. It was clear what I was talking about from the beginning, but since it suits your purpose, you would rather call me a liar. Something you only would do over the internet rather than face to face.

Of course the Fox people knew what she said after the goddamn. No one is saying otherwise. The technical reasons are contained in comments above. What possible difference does that make? If she had said If mothers ruled the world, there would be no…." "…god-damned reason for moveon to exist to continue to pollute the political process" They still would have cut everything said 5-7 seconds after the goddamn.

And another thing: media consolidation? What are you talking about? Are you talking about Rush Limbaugh? Are you talking about leftist doppleganger Keith Olberman? Are you talking about FOX? CNN? Are you talking about National Review? The New Republic? The American Prospect? TIME? US News?

Regarding Fox's policy, I was too vague. Fox only allows anti-GOP opinions to be voiced either 1) as part of a fictional story; or 2) when the anti-GOP personal is an ineffectual person like Colmes who can be easily shouted down by someone who will toe the party line. Lacking those conditions, anti-war spokesmen on Fox get the Sally Field treatment.

Which isn't against the law, don't get me wrong. I just wish they would publicize their editorial standards, so people could really evaluate whether they're "fair and balanced."

It was clear what I was talking about from the beginning, but since it suits your purpose, you would rather call me a liar. Something you only would do over the internet rather than face to face.

Wrong on both counts. First, I didn't call you a liar because it "suited my purpose." I called you a liar because you lied. That wasn't my fault.

And also, I would most definitely call you a liar to your face. I have absolutely no patience in my life for liars, and have been known to express that in real life with some frequency.

If she had said If mothers ruled the world, there would be no…." "…god-damned reason for moveon to exist to continue to pollute the political process"They still would have cut everything said 5-7 seconds after the goddamn.

We can't judge such a hypothetical, however I strongly doubt that this would have occurred.

Why? Because it was out of the norm. First, Fox allows the "g-word" on their network all the time. Second, when they do blank out an actual curse word, they just blank out the single word, not the whole sentence. You can see this in action all the time.

So, I would say your hypothetical claim doesn't enjoy much support other than how good it makes you feel to believe it. Enjoy.

Seven, wake up and smell the coffee! Are you so glued to Fox News that you're completely ignorant that due to the Telecommunications Act of 1996, our national media is owned by fewer and fewer companies? Did you completely miss the furor over the FCC's attempt to change this even further in favor of consolidated control?

This is an issue that affects all of us who place any value whatsoever on receiving the unvarnished truth about world affairs. (I accept this is likely to be an extreme minority on this site.) However, for anyone interested, this appears to be a good non-partisan clearinghouse on this kind of information:http://www.iwantmedia.com/resources/index.html

Waaah!!! That was a sexist comment and as a member of a protected minority group I demand an immediate apology for your insensitive comments.

Actually, and I'm simply assuming here that you a woman, you are not a protected minority. You are a majority protected gender, but there are more women than men worldwide. However, if China continues on it's 1 child policy, that will change for them in that country and you can already see that happening. I digress.

So why is there this assumption of the equivalent of "minority" status? Because that's what it is, isn't it? Women might be the factual majority but they are treated like a minority. If mothers were in charge (or just women, generally) then things would be different. All the bad stuff is the fault of those in charge... the men.

History doesn't bear that out, of course. Despite romantic ideas about idyllic periods of matriarchy, cultures that were militant had heroic militant female characters, be it Athena or Diana or whoever the Norse equivalent is or the Biblical Deborah. Geez... isn't Shiva female?

Palestinians give honor to mothers of martyrs and it seems that a fair number of women in that culture do, in fact, take pride in their sons who fulfill that role.

That's a modern example. There are Historical ones as well, such as the Spartan women we hear so much about lately.

A rude person once suggested to me that women should only take on the "traditional" role in warfare, by which he meant prostitution. While that's traditional the even *more* traditional role was to loot bodies on the battle field and kill the wounded.

The idea that women must be the civilizing force because they are somehow intrinsically less war-like or violent than men simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

jeeze. she planned it all? really!?!? she thought ahead of time, "if i run long, and then make and anti-war statement, they'll cut away and that'll look like they censored me and that'll get even more publicity and EVERYONE will know my views, and on top of that FOX will reveal it's bias..."?

well if she's that god damned smart, good for her.

but wait...

why wasn't FOX smart enough to think "sally field is gonna say some political anti-war bullshit and if we censor her, she'll get all this extra publicity. so let her say whatever she wants and we won't bleep her or cut away"...?

so...sally field is actually smarter than everyone at FOX?

wow. sometimes you people have far too much time on your hands. (i'd have to include myself in that group at this moment.)

Synova said..."I think the idea that she planned it that way is silly. Course, the idea that FOX was censoring her political views rather than her language is silly too."

And you base this on what?

I have no idea why they did what they did, but Fox has a reputation for airing what they want you to hear...and ONLY what they want you to hear. (And, yeah, yeah...they can do whatever they want...but that doesn't make it right.)